Development of a Multiplicative, Multi-attribute Utility Function and Eight Single-attribute Utility Functions for the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 in Japan

Overview

Journal J Patient Rep Outcomes

Specialty Health Services

Date 2020 Apr 5

PMID 32246218

Citations 3

Authors

Shinichi Noto

Takeru Shiroiwa

Makoto Kobayashi

Tatsunori Murata

Shunya Ikeda

Takashi Fukuda

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: The Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3) is a generic multi-attribute, preference-based system for assessing health-related quality of life. It is widely used overseas as an outcome measure and for estimating quality-adjusted life years. We aimed to estimate a multi-attribute and eight single-attribute utility functions for the HUI3 system based on community preferences in Japan. We conducted two preference surveys in this study. The first survey was designed to estimate a model of utility function and collect preference scores, and the second survey was designed to evaluate predictive validity of the utility function and provide independent scores. Values obtained from the feeling thermometer and standard gamble scores obtained from using a chance board were included in the preference scale. We recruited 1043 respondents (age: 20-79 years) from five cities in Japan through the general population classified by sex and age groups. Respondents were further randomly divided into a modeling group (n = 774) and a direct group (n = 263).

Results: We acquired the estimation for eight single-attribute and a global multi-attribute utility function. The minimum expected multi-attribute utility score was - 0.002. The intraclass correlation coefficient between the directly measured utility score and the score generated by multi-attribute function in terms of 53 health conditions was 0.742.

Conclusions: The HUI3 scoring function developed in Japan has a strong theoretical and empirical basis. It will be useful in future to predict the directly measured score of health technology assessments in Japan.

Citing Articles

Valuation survey for SF-6Dv2 in Japan based on the international protocol.

Shiroiwa T, Yamamoto Y, Murata T, Mulhern B, Bjorner J, Brazier J Qual Life Res. 2024; 34(2):445-455.

PMID: 39602017 PMC: 11865146. DOI: 10.1007/s11136-024-03830-w.

Generic and Hearing-Specific Quality of Life in Older Adult Cochlear Implant Users.

Imagawa N, Motegi M, Kondo Y, Shimazaki T, Yamauchi T, Suka M Cureus. 2024; 16(8):e66042.

PMID: 39224740 PMC: 11366783. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.66042.

Japanese value set for the EORTC QLU-C10D: A multi-attribute utility instrument based on the EORTC QLQ-C30 cancer-specific quality-of-life questionnaire.

Shiroiwa T, King M, Norman R, Muller F, Campbell R, Kemmler G Qual Life Res. 2024; 33(7):1865-1879.

PMID: 38724771 PMC: 11176232. DOI: 10.1007/s11136-024-03655-7.

References

Feeny D, Furlong W, Torrance G . What were they thinking when providing preference measurements for generic health states? The evidence for HUI3. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2018; 16(1):166. PMC: 6094882. DOI: 10.1186/s12955-018-0993-9. View

Shiroiwa T, Fukuda T, Ikeda S, Takura T, Moriwaki K . Development of an Official Guideline for the Economic Evaluation of Drugs/Medical Devices in Japan. Value Health. 2017; 20(3):372-378. DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.08.726. View

Furlong W, Feeny D, Torrance G, Barr R . The Health Utilities Index (HUI) system for assessing health-related quality of life in clinical studies. Ann Med. 2001; 33(5):375-84. DOI: 10.3109/07853890109002092. View

Felder-Puig R, Frey E, Sonnleithner G, Feeny D, Gadner H, Barr R . German cross-cultural adaptation of the Health Utilities Index and its application to a sample of childhood cancer survivors. Eur J Pediatr. 2000; 159(4):283-8. DOI: 10.1007/s004310050071. View

Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, Janssen M, Kind P, Parkin D . Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res. 2011; 20(10):1727-36. PMC: 3220807. DOI: 10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x. View

Shrout P, Fleiss J . Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull. 1979; 86(2):420-8. DOI: 10.1037//0033-2909.86.2.420. View

Costet N, Le Gales C, Buron C, Kinkor F, Mesbah M, Chwalow J . French cross-cultural adaptation of the Health Utilities Indexes Mark 2 (HUI2) and 3 (HUI3) classification systems. Clinical and Economic Working Groups. Qual Life Res. 1998; 7(3):245-56. DOI: 10.1023/a:1024998300494. View

Szecket N, Medin G, Furlong W, Feeny D, Barr R, DePauw S . Preliminary translation and cultural adaptation of Health Utilities Index questionnaires for application in Argentina. Int J Cancer Suppl. 2000; 12:119-24. View

Shiroiwa T, Fukuda T, Ikeda S, Takura T . New decision-making processes for the pricing of health technologies in Japan: The FY 2016/2017 pilot phase for the introduction of economic evaluations. Health Policy. 2017; 121(8):836-841. DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2017.06.001. View

10.

Horsman J, Furlong W, Feeny D, Torrance G . The Health Utilities Index (HUI): concepts, measurement properties and applications. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003; 1:54. PMC: 293474. DOI: 10.1186/1477-7525-1-54. View

11.

Torrance G, Furlong W, Feeny D . Health utility estimation. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2009; 2(2):99-108. DOI: 10.1586/14737167.2.2.99. View

12.

Le G, Buron C, Costet N, Rosman S, Slama P . Development of a preference-weighted health status classification system in France: the Health Utilities Index 3. Health Care Manag Sci. 2002; 5(1):41-51. DOI: 10.1023/a:1013201102918. View

13.

Wang Q, Chen G . The health status of the Singaporean population as measured by a multi-attribute health status system. Singapore Med J. 1999; 40(6):389-96. View

14.

Feeny D, Kaplan M, Huguet N, McFarland B . Comparing population health in the United States and Canada. Popul Health Metr. 2010; 8:8. PMC: 2873793. DOI: 10.1186/1478-7954-8-8. View

15.

Brazier J, Ara R, Rowen D, Chevrou-Severac H . A Review of Generic Preference-Based Measures for Use in Cost-Effectiveness Models. Pharmacoeconomics. 2017; 35(Suppl 1):21-31. DOI: 10.1007/s40273-017-0545-x. View

16.

Bland J, Altman D . A note on the use of the intraclass correlation coefficient in the evaluation of agreement between two methods of measurement. Comput Biol Med. 1990; 20(5):337-40. DOI: 10.1016/0010-4825(90)90013-f. View

17.

Feeny D, Furlong W, Torrance G, Goldsmith C, Zhu Z, DePauw S . Multiattribute and single-attribute utility functions for the health utilities index mark 3 system. Med Care. 2002; 40(2):113-28. DOI: 10.1097/00005650-200202000-00006. View

18.

Glaser A, Furlong W, Walker D, Fielding K, Davies K, Feeny D . Applicability of the Health Utilities Index to a population of childhood survivors of central nervous system tumours in the U.K. Eur J Cancer. 1999; 35(2):256-61. DOI: 10.1016/s0959-8049(98)00367-0. View